Conspiracy And Joint Criminal Enterprise Under Finnish Law
Overview: Conspiracy and Joint Criminal Enterprise in Finnish Law
Finnish Criminal Code does not explicitly use the term “joint criminal enterprise,” but liability for participation in a common plan or conspiracy is covered under provisions on accessories (aiding, abetting, incitement) and group offenses.
Key principles:
Common Purpose: All participants share the intention to commit a crime.
Contribution: Each participant is criminally responsible for the acts carried out within the scope of the agreed plan.
Foreseeability: If a participant could reasonably foresee additional crimes committed by the group in pursuit of the common plan, they may also be liable.
Relevant provisions:
Chapter 6, Section 5: Accomplice liability (abetting or aiding).
Chapter 6, Section 7: Planning and ordering crimes.
Chapter 6, Section 9: Liability for multiple participants in violent crimes.
Case Examples
1. Helsinki Robbery Conspiracy (2015)
Facts: Four individuals planned and executed an armed robbery at a convenience store. Only two directly entered; the others provided lookout and getaway support.
Court Reasoning: Court applied principles of common plan and accessory liability. Those outside the store were convicted because their actions materially contributed to the robbery.
Outcome: Active participants: 4–5 years imprisonment; accomplices: 2 years conditional sentence.
Significance: Shows Finnish courts treat all participants in a criminal plan as liable, even if they do not commit the physical act.
2. Oulu Burglary Ring (2016)
Facts: A group of six teenagers committed multiple residential burglaries over three months. One acted as a planner, others carried out thefts.
Court Reasoning: Court emphasized shared intent: all members knew the plan and the risks. Psychological reports and age were considered for mitigating sentences.
Outcome: Juvenile detention for 1–2 years; community service and rehabilitation for younger members.
Significance: Reinforces that JCE principles apply to organized crime among juveniles, but rehabilitation is prioritized for minors.
3. Tampere Drug Trafficking Conspiracy (2018)
Facts: Three defendants coordinated drug importation and local distribution. One handled logistics, another collected money, and the third supplied networks.
Court Reasoning: Each participant was responsible for the enterprise because they knowingly facilitated the operation, even if they did not handle drugs directly.
Outcome: Sentences: 4–6 years imprisonment; all fined for illegal proceeds.
Significance: Shows Finnish law treats conspiracy to commit serious crimes as full criminal liability for each co-conspirator.
4. Espoo Human Trafficking Ring (2017)
Facts: Two defendants recruited foreign workers under false pretenses and forced them into labor; several others facilitated housing and transportation.
Court Reasoning: Liability was extended to all participants who knowingly contributed to the exploitation. Court applied foreseeability principle: anyone aware of the potential harm was culpable.
Outcome: Main perpetrators: 6–8 years imprisonment; facilitators: 2–4 years, plus fines and deportation for foreign accomplices.
Significance: Demonstrates that JCE principles apply to modern organized crime, including exploitation and trafficking.
5. Helsinki Gang Assault Conspiracy (2019)
Facts: A group of youths planned an assault on rival gang members. One instigated, others carried out attacks with weapons.
Court Reasoning: Court found all participants liable for aggravated assault under common purpose doctrine, even those who did not physically strike victims, because they contributed to planning and escalation.
Outcome: Sentences: 2–5 years, depending on level of participation and prior criminal history.
Significance: Illustrates that planning and incitement are sufficient for criminal liability under Finnish law.
6. Cyber Fraud Conspiracy, Jyväskylä (2020)
Facts: Three individuals conspired to defraud online banking customers. One executed the hacking, another laundered funds, the third recruited unwitting accomplices.
Court Reasoning: Court applied the principle that anyone who knowingly participates in a planned criminal enterprise is liable. Each participant’s specific actions were considered when determining sentence.
Outcome: Hacking perpetrator: 3 years; money launderer: 2.5 years; recruiter: 2 years, plus restitution orders.
Significance: Shows that JCE principles extend to cybercrime, not just physical offenses.
✅ Key Takeaways Across Cases
Finnish law holds all participants liable if they share intent and contribute to a criminal enterprise.
Courts evaluate role, contribution, and foreseeability in sentencing.
Juveniles are treated under rehabilitative principles, but liability still applies.
JCE applies broadly: violent crimes, theft, drugs, trafficking, cybercrime.
Accessory liability, planning, and incitement are central to applying these principles.
RELATED Blog
comments